What Other Vehicular Activities Do Statists Intend To Ban?

The Maryland legislature considered a proposal that would have outlawed smoking in a car with a child under eight years of age.

Such measures raise a number of questions and observations.

Firstly, why is it acceptable to smoke in a vehicle with an 8 year old child but wrong to do so around a seven and a half year old?

Secondly, if you can’t smoke around children in a car, who is to say what other legal and decent activities you will eventually be forbidden from enjoying in the presence of minors?

In order to indoctrinate children as sufficiently communal, what is then to prevent the state from forbidding the playing of political talk radio in the presence of anyone under the age of 18?

To ensure that children are indoctrinated to make what Frau Obama considers to be appropriate nutritional selections, what is to prevent legislation that would forbid the consumption of fast food in the presence of minors?

Thirdly, does this mean parents would be required to have an official ID to prove the ages of their children.

Because do seven and eight year olds really look all that different?

If so, why is this appropriate but not requiring adults to show photo ID’s when voting?

For is not the health of a constitutional democratic republic as delicate as that of a young child?

By Frederick Meekins

Advertisements

Baptist Pastor Advocates The Abuse & Persecution Of Other Christians

In addressing the Oregon community college shooting, Pastor William Strum of Berean Baptist Church in Fayetteville, North Carolina observed in remarks posted at SermonAudio how this incident likely portends the increasing martyrdom of believers as America becomes markedly less Christian.

The minister then snidely remarked that we don’t want that but would rather have our own rights.

The Christian should realize that in this world we will have trouble.

However, that does not mean that Christians should allow themselves to be walked all over when these abridgments move beyond the realm of verbal insults into the arena of physical attacks.

For example, should the pastor return home and find that he has been displaced from his residency, is he not going to stand up for his property rights?

What if he shows up to church Sunday morning to discover that Muslims have seized control of the sanctuary for their own purposes?

Is he going to slink away without even a protest?

Sometimes, in the rush to display their own sense of piety, it seems doubtful that a number of Christian leaders are even contemplating the implications of the radical passivity that they are attempting to condition the unsuspecting into accepting.

By Frederick Meekins

Fundamentalist Hardliner Takes A Stand Against Everything Except That Which Matters

With some of these hardline Fundamental Baptists, it seems everything must be explicitly “religious” 24/7.

For example, in one SermonAudio homily, Pastor Bob Barton proudly detailed how he would not allow a church softball team because the purpose of the sacred assembly was not to sponsor such recreational opportunities.

Fine and dandy.

However, this is the very same kind of preacher that would about have a grand mall seizure in the pulpit if someone in the congregation joined a secular recreational league.

In his exposition, the pastor insisted it is not enough to avoid what God is against.

Rather, the believer ought to allow only those things in church which God has explicitly approved.

This is about the width of that proverbial needle the angel is always dancing upon from falling into religious fanaticism.

Using this particular standard, since there is nothing in the Word of God about indoor plumbing or contemporary toiletries such as bathroom tissue, should a church allow these on the property?

It’s just ashame that, if the media is to be believed, that Pastor Barton did get not as outraged over two incidents of child abuse that were perpetrated within his congregation as he does against recreational athletics.

by Frederick Meekins

What Other Doctrines Will Be Allegorized Away?

In a sermon series on the Book of Genesis, an Evangelical Anglican insisted that the days of creation as elaborated in the text were not so much to be understood literally.

Rather, the passage is to be construed as metaphor to help the ignorant Hebrews under the leadership of Moses to understand that all things were created in an orderly fashion.

If that is one’s hermeneutical approach, doesn’t the minister undermine his position when invoking this portion of Scripture to justify exclusive heterosexual marriage?

Rather than as a command confining sexual union to male/female relationships, how does one then argue that the narrative of Adam and Eve isn’t just a poetic image that carnal companionship should be found in whoever’s arms one might happen to fall into?

by Frederick Meekins

New York Times Propagates Mixed Message Regarding Manhood

Published in the 9/27/15 edition of the New York Times is a list titled “27 Ways To Be A Modern Man.”.

A few are just common courtesy such as not scarfing down mouthfuls of popcorn in a movie theater while others are trying to watch the feature presentation.

Others are just a bunch of foo foo nonsense that one would expect from the New York Times.

For example, if I don’t want to eat the fatty or charred bits of a steak or if I drink Mountain Dew as a preferred soda, that is my business.

It is, after all, my individual digestive tract.

Another reads, “The modern man uses the proper names for things. For example, he’ll say ‘helicopter,’ not ‘chopper’ like some gauche simpleton.”

Frankly, how often does a man concerned about being perceived as one verbalize the word “gauche”?

A number were downright hypocritical and dangerous when taken together.

Principle sixteen reads, “The modern man lies on the side of the bed closer to the door. If an intruder gets in, he will try to fight him off, so that his wife has a chance to get away.”

Yet principle twenty-five instructs, “The modern man has no use for a gun. He doesn’t own one, and he never will.”

What about to shoot AND KILL the intruder?

A husband might have a moral obligation to defend his family.

However, he should also be allowed the most technologically effective means to accomplish this task that will likely result in the least amount of physical harm to himself.

There is no reason that a man is obligated to die for some other idiot’s moronic principle that has nothing whatsoever to do with the way the world actually exists.

by Frederick Meekins